In an interview with CNN this afternoon, Candy Crowley reiterated that, like past town-hall debate moderators, she intends to do more than just hold the microphone at tonight's debate in Hempstead, N.Y. -- an intention that has caused concern for both campaigns.

"They will call on 'Alice,' and 'Alice' will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there's time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it," Crowley said. "So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there's the time to go, 'But Alice asked oranges? What's the answer to that?" Or, 'Well, you say this, but what about that?'"

(Also on POLITICO: 5 things to watch at the debate)

Crowley's vision of her role at tonight's debate is in keeping with past town hall debates, but it would defy the expectations agreed to by both campaigns in the co-signed memorandum of understanding, obtained and released yesterday by Time's Mark Halperin. From section 7, part (c), sub-part (iv) (italics mine):

Quote:

7. Additional Rules Apllicable to the October 16 Debate...

(c) With respect to all questions...

(iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.

There is hardly any gray area here. Crowley is expected to do nothing except to acknowledge questioners, enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments. Many people -- especially journalists -- would and have objected to that, but that's the agreement.

(See also: Full text of the presidential debate contract)

Of course, Crowley could choose to go rogue and (gasp!) press a candidate on specifics. She might be criticized (or, just as likely, commended) after the fact, but no one's going to run in from the wings and take the mic from her hands. But if you're wondering what Crowley is technically expected to do tonight, beyond holding the microphone, taking questions, and keeping time... the answer is: nothing.

So when Crowley goes on CNN and says:

Quote:

Once the table is kind of set by the town hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about x, y, z?’

Or:

Quote:

The nice thing will be, if the town hall person asks about apples, and they answer oranges, I get to say, ‘Wait a second, the question was about apples — let’s talk about that.'

......you can see why it concerns the campaigns. As when she told POLITICO, "I’m not a fly on the wall... I’m going to react organically to what’s happening."

Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, declined to comment on the controversy surrounding Crowley's role, but Commission co-chairman Mike Curry yesterday cautioned against "reinterpretation from the moderator."

(Also on POLITICO: Carole Simpson hopes Crowley follows up)

Asked on CNN today how she was responding to the controversy surrounding her role tonight, Crowley said: "We are so close to an election, and there are people around these two men that push every button they can to try to get an advantage. I understand the stakes are enormous. This is what campaigns do, they push and shove and pull, and moderators become a part of that evermore in society over the past election cycles. It's just a part of it. But in the end, you'll look at these debates as a continuum, and people can judge all the debates the way they want in the end."

When the anchor made a joke about the pressure Crowley must be feeling, she responded, "No pressure here."

So, it would be considered 'defying' by her doing the job the moderator is supposed to do? Really?

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 16th, 2012, 3:58 pm

njroar

Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3283

Re: Pres Debate#2

Well, they aren't supposed to alter the questions or push them into another direction. That's what Brokaw did in 2008. He changed questions to his liking instead of sticking with the questions that were sent in which goes against the rules. That's what both campaigns want to avoid.

October 16th, 2012, 4:40 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10064Location: Dallas

Re: Pres Debate#2

this one is going to be much tougher for Mitt based upon expectations alone. Expectations for him are going to be much higher this go around which will impact how people view his performance.

Wags - don't you have picture in picture on your TV? I'll have Obama, Romney and Verlander all on...

Wags - don't you have picture in picture on your TV? I'll have Obama, Romney and Verlander all on...

DirecTv brother, no PIP Guess I could stream the debate and watch the game...

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 16th, 2012, 4:41 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Pres Debate#2

njroar wrote:

Well, they aren't supposed to alter the questions or push them into another direction. That's what Brokaw did in 2008. He changed questions to his liking instead of sticking with the questions that were sent in which goes against the rules. That's what both campaigns want to avoid.

Agree that the moderators shouldn't change the path / question; however they should be able to ensure the candidate actually answers the question being asked, don't you think? How many times have we heard a candidate asked a question and not even attempt to answer it?

Remember this:

Mitt Romney wrote:

You Get to Ask the Questions You Want, I Get to Give the Answers I Want

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 16th, 2012, 4:46 pm

njroar

Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3283

Re: Pres Debate#2

TheRealWags wrote:

njroar wrote:

Well, they aren't supposed to alter the questions or push them into another direction. That's what Brokaw did in 2008. He changed questions to his liking instead of sticking with the questions that were sent in which goes against the rules. That's what both campaigns want to avoid.

Agree that the moderators shouldn't change the path / question; however they should be able to ensure the candidate actually answers the question being asked, don't you think? How many times have we heard a candidate asked a question and not even attempt to answer it?

Remember this:

Mitt Romney wrote:

You Get to Ask the Questions You Want, I Get to Give the Answers I Want

I agree and that's what the moderator was saying, but her initial statement sounded different.

Quote:

Once the table is kind of set by the town hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about x, y, z?’

Isn't the same as :

Quote:

The nice thing will be, if the town hall person asks about apples, and they answer oranges, I get to say, ‘Wait a second, the question was about apples — let’s talk about that.'

The first statement makes it sound like she'd expand on the answer, whereas the second is redirecting. The second is the job of the moderator in the town hall format. The first is the job of the moderator in the standard format.

If the question was about oranges, and they answer apples, and the moderator then directs to orange trees or workers at orange farms, that would be against the format. The x,y, z portion of the original statement is what spawned the pushback.

October 16th, 2012, 4:54 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Pres Debate#2

For those that watched the entire thing, what is your take on it? I only saw bits and pieces of it...when I did see it though I saw a couple of supposed grown men arguing like school kids on the playground, not what I would call leadership on either side, though it could have been 'out of context'.

Here's FactCheck.org's take on it:

FactCheck.org wrote:

FactChecking the Hofstra DebateObama and Romney continue false, misleading attacks in second debate. Posted on October 17, 2012

SummaryThe second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.

■Obama challenged Romney to “get the transcript” when Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day, but then refrained from using such terms for weeks.■Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.■Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”■Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.■Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.■Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.■Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.■Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.

Both candidates repeated false or misleading claims they have made, and we have rebutted, many times before. Obama repeated his claim that he wouldn’t put tax rates for affluent families higher than they were under Bill Clinton. Actually, he’s already signed two new taxes that will also fall on those same high-income persons. And Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline. Actually, no final decision has been made, and the company says it expects to win approval and start construction early next year.

For full details on these and other claims in this spin-filled debate, along with links to original sources and full source citations, please read on to our Analysis section.

AnalysisThe second debate between President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, was held at Hofstra University on New York’s Long Island. It was a town-meeting affair in which both candidates frequently interrupted and contradicted each other.

Terrorist Attack in LibyaThere was a sharp exchange between the candidates on the issue of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and the question of when the president acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. Obama said he called it an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Romney said that “it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”

Obama is correct that he referred to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 speech in the Rose Garden. But after that Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack while it was under investigation — even though other administration officials did.

Quote:

Obama: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime. …

Romney: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

Obama: Please proceed governor.

Romney: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

Obama: Get the transcript.

The transcript does show that Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Sept. 12: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” That night, he said at a Las Vegas fundraiser: “No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

But Romney isn’t entirely wrong. Romney claimed Obama refused for two weeks after the Benghazi attack to call it a terrorist attack and, instead, blamed it on a spontaneous demonstration in response to an anti-Muslim video that earlier that day triggered a violent protest in Egypt.

The president did seem to suggest in his Rose Garden speech that a reason for the Benghazi attack was the video. Obama said: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”

It is also true that Obama, after the Rose Garden speech and Las Vegas event the same day, refrained from characterizing the attack as an act of terrorism. The administration adopted a wait-and-see position, deflecting questions until the investigation into the attack could be completed. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, for example, was asked in a Sept. 17 press briefing if the administration considered the Benghazi attack an act of terror. She said: “Again, I’m not going to put labels on this until we have a complete investigation, okay?”

Obama refused to characterize it as a terrorist attack even after others in the administration said it was.

Matt Olsen, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified on Sept. 19 that it was a “terrorist attack.” He also said the administration still lacked “specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.”

A day later, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it is “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” And on Sept. 21 — two days after Olsen’s testimony — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

Yet, when asked on ABC’s “The View” whether it was a terrorist attack, Obama refused to say. He said, “We’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. We don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it.”

The Romney campaign has accused the administration of misleading the public by claiming the anti-Muslim video was to blame for the attack in Benghazi, rather than admiting it was a failure to detect and prevent an act of terrorism on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We cannot say if there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or whether, as the administration says, the conflicting statements in the weeks after the attack were the result of an evolving investigation. We’ll leave that for readers to decide.

A ‘Model’ Law?Obama said that Romney called Arizona’s 2010 immigration enforcement law “a model for the nation.” But Romney was referring to an employment verification law enacted three years earlier.

At a GOP presidential primary debate in February, Romney said: “You know, I think you see a model in Arizona. They passed a law here that says — that says that people who come here and try and find work, that the employer is required to look them up on E-Verify. This E-Verify system allows employers in Arizona to know who’s here legally and who’s not here legally.”

Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act, which was signed in 2007, requires Arizona employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check the employment eligibility of the workers they employ, and penalizes employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers.

Some interpreted Romney’s remarks at the February debate as saying that Arizona’s 2010 immigration enforcement law was a “model” for the country. But as the full context of his remarks show — and as his campaign later clarified — Romney was specifically referring to the state’s employment verification process, not the state’s 2010 immigration law.

Obama also said that Romney’s “top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed” the 2010 immigration law. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft Arizona’s immigration law, has said that he is an “unpaid adviser” on immigration policy for the Romney campaign. But there is no indication that he is the campaign’s “top adviser,” as Obama said.

‘Imaginary’ Wind-Power JobsObama lifted a Romney quote about wind energy out of context in an attempt to draw a sharper contrast between himself and Romney on renewable energy. Romney didn’t call wind energy “imaginary,” as Obama claimed. Rather, Romney said that wind and solar cannot “power the economy.” Romney contested Obama’s characterization during the debate.

Quote:

Obama: So, for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says these are imaginary jobs, when you’ve got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado, who are working, creating wind power with good-paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator … in Iowa is all for it.

Romney: I don’t have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that — they’re not phantom jobs. They’re real jobs. I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country.

Romney opposes the extension of wind production tax credits (though he does support funding for basic research into cleaner energy technology, including wind). But Romney didn’t call wind energy jobs “imaginary.”

Here’s what Romney penned in an op-ed for the Columbus Dispatch on March 5, 2012:

Quote:

Romney, March 5, 2012: In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed.

Romney’s point was that wind and solar cannot “power the economy,” and that’s correct. In fact, all renewable energy (including hydro power and biofuels) accounted for 9 percent of the nation’s energy consumption in 2011. And while wind generation has doubled since 2008, it still only accounted for 13 percent of all renewable energy generated in 2011. That’s still a very small fraction of the nation’s overall energy supply.

A Romney campaign white paper on energy lambasted “subsidies for an uncompetitive technology to survive in the market” that would be better served by “eliminating any barriers that might prevent the best technologies from succeeding on their own.” Obama, on the other hand, has been a vocal proponent of tax credits to help the wind and solar industries. In short, there are clear policy differences between Obama and Romney on wind and solar issues, but Obama went too far with his claim that Romney called wind energy jobs “imaginary.”

Cutting Taxes for the WealthyRomney said that “I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now” under his tax plan. But that’s not what he said earlier, as Obama correctly noted.

Quote:

Obama: [D]uring a Republican primary, he stood onstage and said, I’m going to give tax cuts — he didn’t say tax rate cuts; he said tax cuts — to everybody, including the top 1 percent, you should believe him, because that’s been his history.

Romney pushed back, explaining that “I’m not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people.” But his remarks this time were different in tone and substance than what he said before, as the president suggested.

Obama was referring to an exchange during a Republican primary debate, when Rick Santorum charged that Romney “suggested raising taxes on the top 1 percent.” Romney countered:

Quote:

Romney, Feb 22, 2012: I said today that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.

$4,000 in Higher Taxes on Middle Class?Romney was wrong when he said “the middle class will see $4,000 per year in higher taxes” as a result of Obama’s fiscal policies. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative group that did the study cited by Romney, calculated the potential impact on different income groups if the U.S. raised taxes to service the national debt. Obama is not planning to raise taxes on the middle class to service the debt any more than Romney says he is.

In its study, AEI calculated the increase in the federal debt under three budget scenarios — including the president’s fiscal year 2013 budget — and then determined the tax burden on 11 income groups if the debt was serviced solely by raising taxes. The other budget scenarios were “current law,” which among other things assumes the Bush-era tax cuts expire for everyone as scheduled at the end of the year, and “current policy,” which assumes the extension of current policies through 2013 — including the Bush tax cuts.

The study itself said Obama’s budget “provides a middle ground between these two extremes.” An AEI blogger wrote an Oct. 2 post that said Obama’s “budget deficits could mean a $4,000 a year middle-class tax hike.” That’s the source of Romney’s claim. The blogger arrives at that figure by combining the potential tax burden already accrued under Obama with the potential tax burden over the next 10 years.

But, as we noted when we first wrote about this, the national debt will continue to rise regardless of who becomes the next president. By Romney’s logic, the House budget resolution crafted by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, will “raise taxes” on the middle class by $2,732 over that same period of time through serving the debt accrued in Obama’s first term and the amount that would accrue under Ryan’s budget.

For more on this, please see “Romney’s $4,000 Tax Tale.”

Romney Wrong on Women’s JobsRomney used a bloated and incorrect figure for the net loss of women’s jobs during Obama’s term.

Quote:

Romney: In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That’s the net of what’s happened in the last four years. We’re still down 580,000 jobs.

Actually, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the net loss of women’s jobs since January 2009, when the president took office, is 283,000.

Even the 283,000 figure is an overstatement. The BLS also has announced that its routine annual benchmarking process will result next year in adding 386,000 total jobs — men and women — to the official historical figures. It did not say how many of those would be women’s jobs, but about 49 percent of total employment is currently accounted for by women. So about 190,000 will probably be subtracted from the 283,000 figure. That would put the current loss at 93,000, making Romney’s figure six times too high.

We assume Romney’s reference to “four years” was meant to cover only Obama’s term. For the record, the number of women’s jobs lost in the last four months of the Bush administration was 833,000, according to the BLS. So the total over four years would come to 1.1 million, with the large majority lost before Obama was sworn in.

Romney may simply have failed to update a shopworn talking point to reflect current reality. Both men and women have gained jobs steadily in recent months. Also, in May the BLS announced it had corrected figures for women’s jobs after discovering it had failed to count 64,000 female employees of the U.S. Postal Service for several years due to a data processing error.

Same rates?Obama repeated his claim that he’d put tax rates on the affluent no higher than they had been under President Clinton.

Quote:

Obama: [F]or above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. We created 23 million new jobs.

That’s true only for federal income tax rates, which Obama would restore to pre-Bush levels for family income exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for individuals.) But, as we’ve noted before, Obama already has enacted new taxes that also will fall on those same taxpayers. For those high-income persons, the new health care law contains a 3.8 percent tax on investment income, and a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax surcharge on wages and salaries exceeding those thresholds.

As a result many, if not most, high-income persons will pay more in federal taxes under Obama’s proposed rates than they did under Clinton.

Auto Bailouts and BankruptcyObama claimed that Romney “said we should let Detroit go bankrupt,” while Romney countered that “the president took Detroit bankrupt. … That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.” There’s some truth and misleading bits on both sides here.

Romney wrote a Nov. 18, 2008, op-ed, published in the New York Times, that carried the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” He argued against a bailout but for a “managed bankruptcy” in which he said that the “federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”

The automakers did go through a managed bankruptcy but not exactly the way Romney proposed. Obama provided loans and made equity investments in General Motors and Chrysler. Both President George W. Bush and Obama used federal funds through TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). GM and Chrylser got $80 billion, and nearly $41 billion has been repaid. Obama required the car companies to come up with reorganization plans as a condition for receiving the federal aid.

A Congressional Research Service report on the restructuring of GM published in September concluded that “[w]ithout the U.S. government assistance, GM would not have been able to pay creditors, suppliers, or workers and would most likely have entered bankruptcy earlier with a less certain outcome.” It said that government support enabled an orderly reorganization and “may have reduced collateral damage to many auto suppliers and some of the other automakers who buy parts from them,” but it also “exposed the U.S. government to risk that not all the assistance would be recovered.”

Growing Pell Grants?Romney said, “I want to make sure we keep our Pell — Pell Grant program growing.” Some voters may have been confused by that statement, since both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have indicated they would limit eligibility for the program. Ryan has also said he would keep the maximum award exactly where it is. But at a University of Miami forum in late September, Romney said he would favor having the college grant increase somewhat, with the rate of inflation.

In a position paper on education published in May, Romney said he would “refocus Pell Grant dollars on the students that need them most and place the program on a responsible long-term path that avoids future funding cliffs and last-minute funding patches.” Ryan, too, proposed in his budget plan “limiting the growth of financial aid and focusing it on low-income students who need it the most.”

In April, Ryan said his plan “maintains the maximum Pell award of $5,550.” So, he’d keep the same level of funding for students who received Pell Grants, but he’d limit eligibility.

But at a Sept. 19 forum for college students at the University of Miami, Romney said, “My inclination would be to have them go with the rate of inflation.”

Gasoline Prices Up $2,000?Romney made the misleading claim that “gasoline prices have gone up $2,000.” He’s making a claim about the average price of gasoline per year per household, not per vehicle.

To get there, Romney took the increase in the average national price of regular gasoline since January 2009 (about $2, according to the Energy Information Administration) and multiplied it by the average number of gallons consumed per vehicle (678 in 2010, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics) and the average number of vehicles per household (1.92 in 2009, according to the Department of Energy).

But the $2,000 figure is greatly inflated because gasoline prices were much higher during most of 2008 than they were at the moment Obama was sworn in. They were temporarily depressed by the world recession, and the yearly cost per family was much higher for all of 2008 than the figure Romney uses as his base. During 2008 prices hit over $4.10 per gallon, and have never been that high since. The most recent monthly average was $3.91.

Romney RepeatsRomney repeated a few other old claims that we’ve checked before:

■He said Obama “doubled” the deficit. Romney is wrong. Obama inherited a projected $1.2 trillion deficit when he took office, as we wrote after the last debate. The government actually ended up with a $1.4 trillion deficit that year — a record. And deficits have remained high since then. It’s true that Obama hasn’t delivered on his 2009 State of the Union address promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. CBO estimates the president’s latest budget plan would drop the deficit to $702 billion in fiscal 2014 and $539 billion in fiscal 2015.■Romney accused Obama of saying “no” to an oil pipeline from Canada, which isn’t entirely accurate. In fact, no final decision has been made on the cross-border Keystone XL pipeline project, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta, in Canada to Steele City, Neb. The TransCanada pipeline company says it will submit a new application soon and anticipates quick approval of the project “in the first quarter of 2013, after which construction will quickly begin.” The Obama administration denied TransCanada’s original route in November 2011 because of concerns that it would pass through the ecologically sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska.■Romney said health insurance premiums had gone up by $2,500. Not true. The average premium for a family employer-based policy has gone up $1,975 between 2010 and 2012, according to an annual survey of employer plans by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust. That’s the total increase for both employers and employees. And Kaiser’s 2011 and 2012 reports said that the amount paid by employees hadn’t changed much.■Romney claimed, as he has in many stump speeches, that Obama “said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent.” Romney is referring to a speculative report issued at the beginning of Obama’s presidency containing projections — not promises — about how the stimulus would affect the economy. Those projections relied on prevailing economic models that quickly proved to have underestimated the depths of the recession at that time.

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 17th, 2012, 11:02 am

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10064Location: Dallas

Re: Pres Debate#2

TheRealWags wrote:

For those that watched the entire thing, what is your take on it? I only saw bits and pieces of it...when I did see it though I saw a couple of supposed grown men arguing like school kids on the playground, not what I would call leadership on either side, though it could have been 'out of context'.

That went on the entire time Wags, what a joke. Seriously anyone fully throwing support behind either the Coke or Pepsi candidate must have pretty low standards. They both either can't get the facts straight or twist them so much they have little meaning.

Can't they just have the two arm wrestle and whoever win is the president?

Fact-checking the town hall debateBy Becky BowersPublished on Tuesday, October 16th, 2012 at 9:20 p.m. Updated Wednesday, October 17th, 2012 at 12:55 a.m.

President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney clashed at a town hall debate Tuesday with talking points that both used and abused the truth.

The candidates aggressively challenged one another on the truthfulness of their statements in front of 82 uncommitted voters at Hofstra University in the second presidential debate of 2012. But that didn't mean they were always truthful themselves.

We'll be updating this story as we post more fact-checks. Here's what we've checked so far.

JobsA 20-year-old college student asked the first question — about jobs.

Romney said that, "with half of college kids graduating this year … without a job, and without a college-level job, that's just unacceptable." We've previously checked his statement that, "Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job." In that version, he missed a key qualifier — according to the research, about a quarter of recent college grads literally can’t find a job, while another quarter have found a job, but one that doesn’t require a college degree. We rated his previous claim Mostly True.

Obama mentioned in his response that Romney once said we should "let Detroit go bankrupt." We checked a similar claim from Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, at the Democratic National Convention in September. She said that Romney's response to the crisis in the auto industry was, "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Romney did use the words about letting Detroit go bankrupt in a CBS TV interview, but his meaning was more nuanced and he emphasized that he was not referring to liquidation. We rated Granholm's statement Half True.

Asked about fair pay for women, Obama was quick to bring up the first piece of legislation he signed into law — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. "I just want to point out that when Gov. Romney's campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, whether he supported it, he said, ‘I'll get back to you.’ And that's not the kind of advocacy that women need in any economy." Indeed, a Romney adviser did say earlier this year that he would "get back" to a reporter about whether he supported the act. A spokeswoman then said he would not change it, and Romney later said he "certainly support(s) equal pay for women," and has "no intention of changing that law." So Obama is correct about the initial statement, though Romney later clarified by saying he wouldn't change the law. We rated Obama's claim Mostly True.

EnergyRomney talked about energy as a pocketbook issue, charging that the president's policies were cutting oil production on federal land. "As a matter of fact," he said, "oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land." The statistic, from fiscal year 2011, cherry-picks the most unflattering oil production numbers under the Obama administration and ignores the impact of events well outside the president’s control: changes in technology, decades of presidential policy, and most importantly, the Deepwater Horizon spill. If you look at production since 2009, oil production rose two of three years, for a net increase of 10.6 percent. We rated Romney's claim Half True.

Obama addressed Romney, saying, "When you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, 'This plant kills.'" Romney was the newly elected governor when a showdown erupted over the coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station. Obama quoted Romney accurately when he said the governor entered the controversy by saying the plant "kills people." We rate his statement True.

Taxes and spendingObama said, "I said I would cut taxes for small businesses, who are the drivers and engines of growth. And we've cut them 18 times." He made a similar claim in the Denver debate, and last summer. When we examined his claim last year that his administration had "provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses," we rated it Mostly True, noting that conservative tax specialists say the statistic ignores proposed and enacted tax hikes on small businesses.

Obama also claimed that Romney "wants to spend $2 trillion on additional military programs even though the military's not asking for them." The president said much the same thing at the first debate, when he said Romney's plan called for "$2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for." Independent analysts confirm that number, and Romney did not deny it. We rated the statement True.

Obama challenged the math of Romney's tax plan. Romney fired back: "When we're talking about math that doesn't add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion?" We recently checked a related ad from American Crossroads that claimed Obama’s "spending drove us $5 trillion deeper in debt." Not all of the $5 trillion can be attributed to Obama's spending. More than half can be attributed to his tax cuts and the policies of President George W. Bush. We rated the ad's claim Half True.

Health careObama said, "You know, there are some things where Gov. Romney is different from George Bush. George Bush didn't propose turning Medicare into a voucher." Obama made a similar claim at the first debate, that Romney "would turn Medicare into a voucher program." The plan would give seniors a premium support payment toward private insurance, to replace the current system of government payments to doctors and hospitals. Generally, we think "voucher program" is a fair way of describing to voters the vision for Medicare under a Romney-Ryan administration. We rated Obama's claim Mostly True.

ImmigrationRomney claimed that Obama, "said in his first year he'd put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. (But he) didn't even file it." Obama did make the promise in 2008 and while he talked about moving forward, he did not. We rated Romney's statement True.

Obama continued his contrast of Romney's policies versus Bush, adding, "George Bush embraced comprehensive immigration reform. He didn't call for self-deportation." PolitiFact Georgia earlier this year tracked Romney's statements on immigration, and he has consistently talked about an immigration approach of supporting policies that encourage illegal immigrants to return to their homeland.

Obama also claimed Romney said during the Republican primary, "I will veto the DREAM Act," a law that would provide a path to legal status to young people who are in school. Obama adviser David Plouffe has made a similar claim, that, "Gov. Romney was very clear, he would veto the DREAM Act." Romney did say that, without equivocation, during the Republican primary. We rated the claim True.

Obama said Romney "called the Arizona law a model for the nation," adding that "part of the Arizona law said that law enforcement officers could stop folks because they suspected maybe they looked like they might be undocumented workers and check their papers." We found Obama mischaracterized Romney’s salute to Arizona’s 2007 mandate that employers electronically verify the legal status of employees. That E-Verify requirement was not in the 2010 Arizona law, known as S.B. 1070. It’s no secret that Romney has been supportive of S.B. 1070, but it’s incorrect to say he argued it was a "model for the nation." Romney’s support for the law has been consistently framed by support for the right of states to choose their own path. We rated Obama's claim False.

As Romney and Obama tangled over immigration, Obama interjected, "This used to be a bipartisan issue." Obama made a similar claim in June about the politics of the DREAM Act. He said it "was written by members of both parties. When it came up for a vote a year and a half ago, Republicans in Congress blocked it. The bill hadn’t changed. ... The only thing that had changed was politics." Obama’s comment glossed over some of the details, but his statement this summer was largely correct. We rated it Mostly True.

Foreign policyThe candidates tangled over the Obama administration's response to the recent attack in Libya that claimed the life of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Romney said, "It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." In fact, Obama described it in those terms the day after the attack. But in the days that followed, neither he nor all the members of his administration spoke consistently on the subject. There were many suggestions that the attack was part of demonstrations over an American-made video that disparaged Islam. We rated Romney's statement Half True.

As the candidates clashed over foreign policy, Romney charged that, "the president's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour." We've repeatedly rated this claim from Romney, including his remarks at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. A review of Obama’s foreign travels and remarks during his early presidency showed no evidence to support such a blunt and disparaging claim. (In later years, we found two formal apologies, but they were not at the start of his presidency and not part of a tour.) While Obama's speeches contained some criticisms of past U.S. actions, he typically combined those passages with praise for the United States and its ideals, and he frequently mentioned how other countries had erred as well. We found not a single, full-throated apology in the bunch. Calling those remarks "an apology tour" is a ridiculous charge. We have once again rated his statement Pants on Fire.

EducationRomney, answering a question about gun control, talked about changing the culture of violence. "How are we going to do that? ... There are a number of things. (Obama) mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be No. 1 in the nation in my state." We previously rated a claim from Romney that Massachusetts schools "are ranked No. 1 of all 50 states." (We didn't grade him on whether he gets credit or not — boosted investment in the state's schools was well under way when Romney took office.) But Romney has good reason to say Massachusetts has the nation’s best schools. Although there’s no yardstick comparing the quality of schools by state, by several measures — though not all — he is right. We rated the claim Mostly True.

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 17th, 2012, 11:13 am

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Pres Debate#2

Pablo wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

For those that watched the entire thing, what is your take on it? I only saw bits and pieces of it...when I did see it though I saw a couple of supposed grown men arguing like school kids on the playground, not what I would call leadership on either side, though it could have been 'out of context'.

That went on the entire time Wags, what a joke. Seriously anyone fully throwing support behind either the Coke or Pepsi candidate must have pretty low standards. They both either can't get the facts straight or twist them so much they have little meaning.

Yikes! These are they best that we as a nation can come up with? I weep for our future regardless of who 'wins'.

Its gotten so bad that for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting. Why should I? It's not like my vote is going to count; my state, AZ, is already firmly in Romney's camp.

Pablo wrote:

Can't they just have the two arm wrestle and whoever win is the president?

Heh, as funny as that sounds, and as interesting as it might be watch, why do I have the feeling that some time in our not-so-distant future there's going to be a reality show for this?

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 17th, 2012, 11:18 am

njroar

Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3283

Re: Pres Debate#2

The bickering just shows they're taking it serious. It all comes down to the last debate Monday. If your side was given less time in all 3 debates, wouldn't you want to make sure you finished what you were saying? Or given the same chance to respond that the other side got? Obama got 9% more time last night. 3 minutes in the first and Biden got 2 minutes more in the VP debate. One is a fluke, twice ahhhh, third time?... it's a trend.

When I watched it, I thought Obama won, but only because he did what the Dems wanted and came out swinging, but Romney hit the important topics much stronger. The one gaffe that everyone claimed Romney made was the Libya gotcha, but even Crowley said afterwards on CNN that he was right afterall. Of course no one on the other channels heard that.

Independents paid attention to what is important to them, and even on MSNBC the independents in the focus groups mostly swung to Romney. Even former Obama voters. Gallup has Romney at 51% to Obama's 45% up from 50-46 yesterday.

The main thing I saw was Romney again said jobs jobs jobs... and Obama hoped for more time to continue to fix things. For those that don't feel things have gotten better, hope doesn't pay the bills. While he hammers Romney about details of his plan, he's still hasn't even laid out a plan other than to continue what's already doing, which even he says isn't enough. It's not a good strategy.

October 17th, 2012, 2:49 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Pres Debate#2

njroar wrote:

The bickering just shows they're taking it serious. It all comes down to the last debate Monday. If your side was given less time in all 3 debates, wouldn't you want to make sure you finished what you were saying? Or given the same chance to respond that the other side got? Obama got 9% more time last night. 3 minutes in the first and Biden got 2 minutes more in the VP debate. One is a fluke, twice ahhhh, third time?... it's a trend.

Your side? I thought we were all Americans and therefore on the same side. IMO this is just another example of what is wrong with politics today; there are NO sides.

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 17th, 2012, 3:00 pm

njroar

Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3283

Re: Pres Debate#2

TheRealWags wrote:

njroar wrote:

The bickering just shows they're taking it serious. It all comes down to the last debate Monday. If your side was given less time in all 3 debates, wouldn't you want to make sure you finished what you were saying? Or given the same chance to respond that the other side got? Obama got 9% more time last night. 3 minutes in the first and Biden got 2 minutes more in the VP debate. One is a fluke, twice ahhhh, third time?... it's a trend.

Your side? I thought we were all Americans and therefore on the same side. IMO this is just another example of what is wrong with politics today; there are NO sides.

I was talking about Romney and Ryan. There's two sides in the debate and every one so far, Obama and Biden were given more time. I used your to try to get you to step into their shoes. I'm sick, and obviously failed lol

October 17th, 2012, 5:43 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Pres Debate#2

njroar wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

njroar wrote:

The bickering just shows they're taking it serious. It all comes down to the last debate Monday. If your side was given less time in all 3 debates, wouldn't you want to make sure you finished what you were saying? Or given the same chance to respond that the other side got? Obama got 9% more time last night. 3 minutes in the first and Biden got 2 minutes more in the VP debate. One is a fluke, twice ahhhh, third time?... it's a trend.

Your side? I thought we were all Americans and therefore on the same side. IMO this is just another example of what is wrong with politics today; there are NO sides.

I was talking about Romney and Ryan. There's two sides in the debate and every one so far, Obama and Biden were given more time. I used your to try to get you to step into their shoes. I'm sick, and obviously failed lol

Ok, I understand what you're saying. But if their 'side' is going to complain because of a couple of minutes, IMO that sounds childish. The incumbents got some 'extra' time; so what, they're the incumbents they're going to have the advantage, get over it. To paraphrase a common saying: If you want to be the Pres, you've got to beat the Pres. Overcome the 'homefield' advantage and win it outright.

As an aside, one could also say about the 'whining' What's the matter Reps? Wasn't is fair? Did you not get your fair share? /yeah, lame I know, its been a loooonnnggg day

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

October 17th, 2012, 5:53 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 10064Location: Dallas

Re: Pres Debate#2

Actually, as a fairly nuetral observer BO did seem to get about 10% more talking time (I'd guess about 4 more minutes on about 40 minutes worth of speak time for each candidate). It is a fairly small amount of time, didn't bother me at all.

If something wasn't fair as far as Romney is concerned it was the mod jumping in on the "act of terror" comment. I was shocked that a mod would weigh in like that, made her look very biased toward the Prez IMO and very unprofessional.